Logical structure extraction from software requirements documents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software requirements documents (SRDs) are often authored in general-purpose rich-text editors, such as MS Word. SRDs contain instances of logical structures, such as use case, business rule, and functional requirement. Automated recognition and extraction of these instances enables advanced requirements management features, such as automated traceability, template conformance checking, guided editing, and interoperability with requirements management tools such as RequisitePro. The variability in content and physical representation of these instances poses challenges to their accurate recognition and extraction. To address these challenges, we present a framework allowing 1) the specification of logical structures in terms of their content, textual rendering, and variability and 2) the extraction of instances of such structures from rich-text documents. Our evaluation involves 36 different logical structures identified in 43 SRDs and shows that the intended content, style, and variability of these structures can be specified in the framework such that their instances can be extracted from the documents with high precision and recall, both close to 100%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it